Cognitive stuff from a cognitive person. If you've got any requests, drop me an email. If it takes me a while to get to it, drop me another one.
Way, way back in September of 2005, a Danish newspaper published some cartoons depicting Muslims and their prophet, and in response, thousands of Muslim extremists responded with varying degrees of threatened and actual violence. As you all know, this resulted in a storm of media coverage around the world, including pretty extensive coverage in the American media. This coverage resulted in several important and, it seems to me, pretty productive discussions on a wide variety of relevant issues, including self-censorship among journalists, the double standard that exists when criticizing religion (as opposed to other world-views, such as the political), anti-Arab racism xenophobia in Europe, and Denmark in particular, as well as the inappropriatess and unacceptibility of the violent reaction of tens of thousands of Muslims across the Muslim world, which resulted in death and destruction.
I think several conclusions can be and were drawn from that discussion, such as that the cartoons were inappropriate, that self-censorship isn't inherently bad, but that people shouldn't be forced to self-censor for fear of their lives or the lives of others, that religion should be open to criticism, but that such criticism shouldn't be gratuitious, racist, or trade in overgeneralizations, that anti-Arab sentiments are rampant in Europe and the U.S. (duh), and that certain Muslim extremists will use any excuse to behave violently and incite others to do so as well. In the end, Denmark, with its Dansk Folkeparti right-wing xenophobes came off looking pretty bad, but Muslims came off looking much, much worse. Their behavior, and the resulting coverage and discussion of it, was perhaps that strongest indictment of Islamic extremism and its ability to infect the minds of people throughout the Muslim world that anyone could have produced. In this case, it was difficult not to see that many Muslims -- and in this case, it wasn't just a few extremists, but huge mobs of people -- were behaving very badly in the name of their religion.
In addition to media coverage and frank discussion, there was another response in both Europe and the U.S. to the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, though. This response came almost exclusively from right wing groups (e.g., the Folkeparti's youth wing) in Europe, and right wing bloggers in the U.S. (e.g., Michelle Malkin). And as you might imagine, given who was involved, this response didn't involve discussion, but instead used one-upmanship and look-at-me tactics like holding contests to produce even more offensive anti-Muslim/Arab cartoons, or reproducing the cartoons over and over and over again to accompany xenophobic anti-Arab rhetoric. These reactions were, at best, counterproductive. They added nothing to the discussion, and repeatedly illustrated how widespread anti-Arab racism is in the west. A pretty good rule of thumb is that if you want to show that someone's being a giant ass, it's best not to try to be one yourself.
The lesson I'm trying to convey is that in cases like that of the Danish cartoons and the response to them, there are two paths one can take: frank, reasoned discussion, or circus-like attention-whoring, and only one is truly effective. While the former causes people to actually think about what's going on, in all its complexity (and let's face it, the Danish cartoon situation was very complex, raising all sorts of social, political, ethical, and religious issues), whereas the latter may preach to the choir but is harmful more broadly.
Which brings us to 2008. Last month, as you all know, a student at the University of Central Florida got into a bit of trouble because he took a communion wafer, first back to his seat, and then back to his apartment. Catholics were none too happy about this, and at first responded by filing formal complaints with UCF, and then, once that piece of pond scum Bill Donahue got involved, harassing the poor kid and even issuing death threats. The reaction of Catholics in this case hasn't been as extreme as the reactions of Muslims in the case of the Danish cartoons, obviously, but if it hasn't been of the same magnitude, it has turned out to be of the same type: a violent reaction to perceived religious insults. This is unacceptable, and we'd have done well to display their reaction far and wide, and make it clear what Bill Donahue's role in it was, because inevitably, while the kid may have come off looking like a bit of a naive jerk, the Catholics would have come off looking much, much worse, and we might actually have been able to rationally discuss some of the issues that this case raises (like that double standard mentioned earlier in the post). Once again, we had a choice: rational discussion, or the juvenile attention-whoring characteristic of right-wing xenophobes.
Let's go back to 2006 for a minute. That's when I joined ScienceBlogs which, at the time, billed itself as the "world's largest conversation about science." Granted, at the time there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of science on ScienceBlogs (science comprised something like 30% of SB's content), but ScienceBlogs was (and is) a product of Seed Media Group, whose motto is "Science is Culture," and apparently many of the early ScienceBloggers just forgot the science part and focused on the culture (in the form of politics and religion). Now, Seed has been great over the last year and a half or so, more than doubling their blog total, and many of the blogs they've added are almost exclusively science-oriented. But Seed's biggest blog, the one to which everyone else in the network is inclined to link if they want a traffic boost, and which therefore can have a big influence on the content of the entire network, long ago ceased to be about either science or conversation. Instead, it became a prolonged self-aggrandizing, attention-whoring rant (it's likely not a coincidence that the proportion of rant to science, and the tone of that rant, grew in proportion to the blog's traffic).
Now, if we were to take ScienceBlog's self-description as a conversation about science seriously, we might be inclined to believe that ScienceBlogs would be the home of a rational discussion what happened with the UCF student and the idiot Catholics who harassed him. But in all likelihood, before we started to believe that, we'd be reminded that ScienceBlog's biggest name is not interested in conversation or rational discussion, and so we would not be surprised that instead of taking the broadly effective route, that blogger chose instead the juvenile tactics of right-wing xenophobes, in order to show that he is, in fact, the biggest, baddest, most anti-religious atheist in all of the intertubes, and to get all sorts of attention both from his loyal epigones and from religious nuts (it's probably not a coincidence, as well, that the blogger in question is planning on publishing a book sometime soon). There has been a resulting discussion, of course, but instead of focusing on the Catholics and their abominable behavior, the discussion has been about our biggest blogger and his nonsense.
There are dozens of reasons to criticize the behavior of that blogger, perhaps the most salient of which is that it's never OK to gratuitously attempt to hurt the feelings of large groups of people, with no other reasonable end but to hurt their feelings, but I think the most tragic consequence of said blogger's behavior is that it pretty much cuts off any discussion of the real issues, and diverts the attention to him. And I find it sad any time the opportuntity for rational discussion of important issues is undercut by adolescent nonsense. And I also find it sad that ScienceBlogs, supposedly a bastion of reason, "the world's largest conversation about science," long criticized for being overly liberal in its political orientation, is dominated by an illiberal, anti-intellectual ass whose idea of a rational response is to emulate Michelle Malkin or the Dansk Folkeparti's youth movement. I feel ashamed to be associated with it, and him.
Comments
I note the large number of ad hominem attacks in your post, but not one argument that actually addresses the substance of what "ScienceBlogs' biggest name" actually said.
The only specific criticism you did make was not against what he actually said or did, but against your perception of same:
"it's never OK to gratuitously attempt to hurt the feelings of large groups of people, with no other reasonable end but to hurt their feelings..."
Where did you get the idea that this is what he was doing? I don't recall seeing anywhere in his post where he said that his intent was to deliberately hurt people's feelings. He may have expressed disdain for any feelings that got hurt as a result of what he planned to do, but causing pain was not the intent of his acts.
My understanding was that the Cracker Desecration Affair accomplished the following things, at least (some of which were clearly intended, others perhaps incidental):
1. Made it clear that religious rules and dogma do not apply to society at large, and that we must not allow them to do so
2. Demonstrated that whatever may be meant by the "substance" of the cracker being literally changed into the actual flesh of a revered semi-mythical figure, it would have to be some strange religion-based definition of that word -- as the pierced cracker revealed its sacred innards to be, well, cracker. No blood oozing from between the cracks, as often depicted in Mediaeval paintings, no cries of pain from apparitions of Jesus.
3. Drew defenders of the "offended" stance into the conversation, when otherwise they would have sat back complacently in the secure belief that their unwritten rules were being enforced (innocent student satisfyingly stomped by the boot of authority for the presumption of a minor violation of ritual, with nary a word of protest).
I've already had this argument out with John Pieret; given the similarity between his stance and yours, I don't expect to make any headway here either -- but I do think this seemingly petty squabble over a cracker highlights a significant issue in the war between religion and secularism which can perhaps best be summarized as: Where should the lines be drawn?
Yes, it is about science -- not doing science per se, but preventing religion from running roughshod over the cultural attitudes and standards which make science possible.
Posted by: Woozle | July 26, 2008 4:43 PM
Woozle, my argument is in the first part of the post: there are two ways to go about this, rational discussion and circus-like performance art. In the cartoon case, the former acheived something, namely discussion of the issues, even if our collective attention spans may have ultimately rendered those discussions irrelevant, whereas the latter acheived nothing more than the reiteration or prejudice and attention for right-wing hacks and children. I think that addresses what PZ did pretty directly.
To address your point:
1. My point, pretty clear, is that there are better ways to accomplish this, namely through discussion and public attention on the issues (as opposed to on stunts).
2. Obviously, this is stupid. Catholics are well aware that the crackers don't bleed. They eat them! And I don't know of any catholic reporting blood in their mouth (and besides, it's supposed to be flesh, not blood -- blood's the wine; I mean, if you're going to make a point, at least make a relevant one). Doing things to the cracker makes no point, because it doesn't address the actual belief. It just offends the people. So again, it comes off as nothing more than insult for insult's-sake. Which I suppose is better than the ignorance that your argument #2 presupposes.
3. Again, this is what happened in the case of the cartoons not because of juvenile stunts, but in spite of them, because of the discussion in the media (on the front pages, in editorials and letters to the editor, etc.). The question is not whether Catholic nonsense in reponse to what was a fairly innocent, if somewhat stupid act on the part of the UCF student, should be highlighted, but what is the most effective way of doing so. By imitating medieval anti-Semitic representations of host desecration (to what, highlight medieval anti-semitism in the Catholic church? wow, that's deep), the only thing that gets accomplished is to put the attention on PZ, and actually make the Catholics look somewhat justified in their anger (though not in their expressions of that anger -- violence, and threats of violence, is never justified in cases like these).
If you want to accomplish something in this discussion, start by addressing the argument I made: that there is a better way to go about this, and that unless PZ's really, really stupid (I think we can assume he's not), then a simple look at analogous situations from the past makes it clear that PZ's tactic, which actually is the same sort of tactic used by right wing xenophobes, won't accomplish anything but to insult large groups of people to no other end.
Posted by: Chris | July 26, 2008 5:03 PM
To summarize:
Both sides behaved like assholes (I concur).
Either side could (and should) have taken a different path that would have been better suited for a (more) rational discussion.
my 2 cents:
It's the two students that is getting hammered over the extra controversy generated not PZ or the Catholics going nuts and demanding that heads roll.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 26, 2008 5:22 PM
This is the first post of yours I haven't liked.
The idea that we should be careful about who we offend is silly. Offending people, being aggressive, being angry... it may not be your style, but it works. Most of our best social changes come from people being loud, angry, and offensive.
The point isn't to self-aggrandize. The point isn't that he's childish. And the point CERTAINLY isn't to try to rationally convince inherently irrational people to change their ways. The point is to show fence-sitters that a lifestyle they think is mild and harmless is, in fact, dangerous and delusional. You have to be loud enough because fence-sitters aren't very good listeners.
Everyone already knows geeks are loud and obnoxious. Everyone doesn't already know that Christian zealots will threaten your life if you don't obey them. I think it's more important that they realize the second fact than it is that we hide the first.
I know you think this is -oh!- dreadfully uncouth, but can we get back to your scienceblogging? I miss those days of scienceblogging... I don't read PZ for the science, but I sure as hell read you for the science. Sigh...
Posted by: Craig | July 26, 2008 5:31 PM
Ah, I love the smell of false dichotomy in the morning.
A third path, the one I took, for example, is a good old public shaming. You want to send out death threats? Fine. But any group which you presume to represent will get, in response, a very public, over-the-top caricature in lieu of reasoned discussion. My point is that one simply doesn't "reason" with death threats. My statement to said group was eloquently put by the Resident-in-Chief, "you're either with us or against us". Now there's a real dichotomy for ya. The Catholic Church, much like the so-called Moderate Muslims of 2006, jolly well need to stand up for their values and decide whether death threats are part of the program -- or not. Then they need to let all of us know where they stand. Ball's in their court; has been in their court all along.
The person who released the Rodney King beating on videotape could have gone to the L.A. City Council and reasoned with the Chief. Yeah, or s/he could have written a letter to the L.A. Times. That would have prevented the riots, no?
Posted by: Matt Hussein Platte | July 26, 2008 6:16 PM
Who Cares, it's probably true that this has been prolonged for that kid because of PZ and his minions.
Craig, I didn't say we should be careful who we offend. I said offending people to no end is wrong. There's a difference. I have no problem offending people if it's in the service of some positive end. Otherwise, I wouldn't write posts like this. But I do have a problem with offending people -- anyone, religious or not, just for the sake of offending them (and getting the attention that comes with it).
Matt, this isn't a false dichotomy. It's true, you can sometimes highlight issues with theatrics, but in this case, what issue is being highlighted? That Catholics respond to offense when people purposefuly offend them? That's deep, man. Some Catholics issued death threats (and apparently, so did some atheists in response, though I haven't seen that much discussed)... highlight this, scream it from the roof tops, and give your argument: religion shouldn't be protected, under threat of violence, from criticism and even ridicule, and any religious person who responds to criticism with violence or the threat of violence is at best scum, and perhaps even criminal. But poking holes in crackers? That's just PZ getting his jollies and calling it protest. And really, that's the least pathetic thing it can be.
Even theatrics can have reason behind them, and when they do, they can be productive. The dichotomy isn't between theatrics and reason, it's between pointless theatrics and reason.
Posted by: Chris | July 26, 2008 6:58 PM
Thanks for the reasonable reply.
The two bits you asked me to address, "there's a better way to go about this" and "PZ's tactic won't accomplish anything except...":
1. I think I understand your argument that calm discussion is a better way to accomplish communication and understanding than is putting on a circus-sideshow act and being all confrontational. It's a reasonable argument to make, and I sympathize to some degree with those who make it; I strongly dislike confrontation and heated arguments myself.
However, in this case I disagree with the conclusion, as do many people -- and I'm not arguing from populism or brute force here. If the thesis is "Any atheist argument which isn't sufficiently polite should be considered invalid", then many cogent arguments have been made in disagreement.
If this invalidation is what you are advocating, that is of course a valid point of view.
My disagreements with it:
First off, I think we need to make sure we are talking about the same thing when we say "not being polite". I don't think anyone's suggesting emulating the suffragettes in certain particulars such as breaking windows. (PZ mentioned this detail, but I didn't at all come away with the impression that he was advocating it.) It hasn't come to anything like that yet. (If people were being arrested for eucharist desecration, that might be a different matter.)
For instance, some might call my first sentence to you -- accusing you of ad hominem -- to be impolite. Some might call the simple statement that the Communion wafer is nothing more than a cracker (and not a very good one at that) to be rude, or inconsiderate, or hurting people's feelings. Apparently Creative Minority Report considered a contention of mine to be rude simply because it was strongly phrased, and summarily deleted it.
Closer to the other end of the "rudeness" scale, we have PZ's cracker desecration. It may have involved a performance, but I think he pretty thoroughly discussed his reasons for doing it, in a forum where others had substantial opportunity to talk back (multiple thousands of comments worth, no less, over the course of this whole shenanigans.) If that isn't going about it in a calm and civilized manner, then what is?
Second, and closely related: who is to determine when something is rude? A policy in which it is acceptable to disregard "rude" behavior allows the other side to claim rudeness whenever they'd rather duck a question instead of answering it. They, on the other hand, are held to no such standards; I think we're agreed that the treatment of Webster Cook has been rude in the extreme, as were some of the responses to PZ's posts on this subject (whether or not you agree with him).
You might argue that by taking a destructive action against the communion wafer, he crossed a line from purely verbal disagreement into violence (especially if you buy into the idea that Jesus is somehow present in the cracker).
This is, to borrow a phrase from Frank Zappa, the crux of the biscuit. How did he cross that line? Are you arguing that it's because:
* he obtained the cracker by illegitimate means and therefore it wasn't his to destroy?
* he was celebrating a destructive act?
* he was specifically doing something to violate a religious law?
If it isn't any of these, then please clarify.
2. "a simple look at analogous situations from the past makes it clear that PZ's tactic, which actually is the same sort of tactic used by right wing xenophobes, won't accomplish anything but to insult large groups of people to no other end."
Let's break this down...
2a. Desecrating the cracker is the same sort of tactic used by right-wing xenophobes. How so? Can you give an example of the right-wing tactics you're referring to?
If, for example, you're analogizing the cracker desecration to cross-burnings (as others have done), I don't think that analogy holds. Cross-burning was an intimidation tactic, generally done to target a specific individual or group in a certain area. A cross burning in your yard might be only symbolic, but it was always a threat -- and one that was often carried out; lynchings and burnings were very common.
PZ's act was the opposite, saying in effect "I refuse to be intimidated" to the very large and powerful Catholic Church and the loud and influential Catholic League, in spite of death threats to both PZ and Mr. Cook. Anyone who thinks they are in danger from PZ or Mr. Cook needs their head examined.
If the other side in this dispute had at least made efforts to negotiate in a reasonable way with Mr. Cook, PZ's initial post might arguably have been unjustifiable. If they had attempted to negotiate with PZ after that post (as, indeed, he offered to do), then his carrying through with the desecration might have been unjustifiable.
So yeah, I guess this is (as Pieret pointed out) "they started it" and "tit for tat" -- but it seems to me that PZ handled it in as adult a manner as possible, given the infantile behavior on the other side. His retaliations were not just smaller but much smaller and more civilized than the other side's offenses. It seems to me that this is a very reasonable way to negotiate with a party that won't negotiate: in the language they understand, i.e. force, but being careful that your offenses are always the lesser.
2b. Desecrating the cracker won't accomplish anything but to insult large groups of people to no other end.
I listed the things I thought it had accomplished in my previous comment. Do you disagree that it accomplished those things?
And would we even be having this calm, reasonable conversation if he hadn't gone through with it?
Posted by: Woozle | July 26, 2008 7:36 PM
One of my favorite saying is "All generalizations are wrong." We have to be careful about looking at the postion or behavior of the extreme and then generalizing to the many or the whole group. It appears to be true to me that not all Mulsims are extremists favoring violence. But some are. It appears to me that not all Catholics are extremists favoring violence. But some are. It appears to me that not all atheists are extemists favoring violence. But some are. To argue that the extreme applies to all is easy, but disengenious. When it is taken to childish extreme (forgive the brush with ad hominim reference), it becomes not only dispicable but counter productive. It makes one's postion vulnerable to abuse by the opposite extreme by more overgeneralization. And, as Chris seems to be saying, it removes the opportunity for fruitful discussion. The bulk of the result is little more than name calling (ad hominim?). Maybe all generalizations aren't wrong. But some are.
Posted by: CA | July 26, 2008 7:48 PM
Oh, yes. The moment that PZ took up cudgels against the rabid Catholics at UCF (soon to be followed by hordes of their coreligionists elsewhere), it occurred to me that it was just a clever book promotion gimmick! Too bad he forget to mention "buy my book" during the multiple rounds of the battle.
============
Seriously, Chris. Was that necessary? PZ's style is way more confrontational than mine and I'm not certain that it's more effective than a less heated approach, but it's just plain nasty to imply he did it simply to gin up sales of a book that doesn't even exist yet. More likely he didn't even give it a thought. I suppose we'll know if he ever gets his book done and it's released with cover art of a nailed wafer. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posted by: Zeno | July 26, 2008 8:02 PM
Fifty years ago, American comedians made fun of Catholicism's bread and wine, of Christianity's Jesus, the Apostles ('JC and the gang') God, and the Holy Ghost, and of Hindus' sacred cows. Religious nutjobs got bent out of shape, but the media paid them no mind, so making fun of whatever anybody considered laughable was perfectly alright. There was no market for letting the nutjobs set the agenda. My, how things have changed.
There is nothing anywhere that deserves protection from ridicule. When the demented demand that sane people be forced or coerced into taking their lunacies seriously, then they have turned criminal and deserved to be run out of the country at gunpoint.
Posted by: Eric Cartman's Evil Twin | July 26, 2008 8:33 PM
Whoever wrote this post isn't aware of the fine tradition of 'heaving dead cats into sanctuaries'.
Posted by: steve | July 26, 2008 9:30 PM
What did PZ "accomplish"? The first things coming to my mind about people like PZ are:
1. they don't know about ethics. They think that what is not unlawful is also right.
2. they don't know about trust. They will take pride in breaking other people's trust relations, or in having others acting deceptively under their guidance.
3. they don't know about meaning. They think meaning reduces to physical properties of objects.
So, one may well ask, why should a rational person want to talk about living in a secular society with people who lack such basic competences?
Posted by: Lepas | July 26, 2008 9:41 PM
The pond scum spells its name "Donohue".
Seed's biggest blog still continues a significant fraction of science and conversation.
A 100% "prolonged self-aggrandizing, attention-whoring rant" wouldn't become, or stay, Seed's biggest blog for very long. (It might do quite well at catholicleague.org - or perhaps it already has/is...)
Where's the science in this post?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 26, 2008 9:48 PM
Lepas:
How is it wrong to destroy a cracker someone gave you to eat?
Whose trust was betrayed when Webster Cook tried to return to his seat carrying the Eucharist to educate his fellow student council member about his faith, thinking surely he was safe from abuse in his own church? Whose trust has PZ betrayed?
Symbolic meaning exists, but in this case a phony symbolic significance invented by a bunch of ignorant (by our standards) priests in the dark ages is being exploited as a pawn by modern powermongers who should know better; PZ's action exposes that abuse.
Who really cares, deeply, if someone desecrates a Eucharist without intending to harm or intimidate anyone? If it really bothers you, then why? How does it harm you or anyone else?
At this point, someone will probably drag out the tired "what if I desecrated your 6-y.o. offspring's drawings" argument. That would bother me, for the obvious reason that they are irreplaceable. Is a Eucharist wafer irreplaceable? Is Jesus gradually being used up? For God's sake, stop the transubstantiation now before He's all gone! Future generations will thank you.
No wonder religious people don't seem to get the need for sustainability...
(PS to Chris: this is my brand of atheistic "rudeness". I reserve the right, as a rationalist, to ridicule and parody absurd religious beliefs wherever I find them. You may examine my beliefs and do the same, if you wish; fair's fair.)
Posted by: Woozle | July 26, 2008 10:10 PM
"...long ago ceased to be about either science or conversation."
You know, there's data available on how much science PZ blogs. We can compare your output if you're interested.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 26, 2008 10:11 PM
First things first: If you don't want PZ to get attention, don't blog about him. Wait - what's that? You want attention, too? And might even be jealous you don't get a decent share around here?
"I feel ashamed to be associated with it, and him."
Don't worry, you're not. Dr. Myers not only writes regularly about biological science (seriously, that's why some of us go there - and have gone there - since well before the creation of Science Blogs; you wouldn't grasp any of it, I'd guess, but it's there), but writes with a flair and without a smattering of freakin' frackin' adolescent spelling and grammar mistakes.
There are 65 or 70 bloggers in this network - do you people seriously think of yourselves as "colleagues" just because you've all been bought by the same entity? The range of quality and technical expertise is as astounding as the infighting is amusing.
Posted by: Jules Winfield | July 26, 2008 10:49 PM
Woozle,
The cracker was given to Mr. Cook because he was trusted by the other people in the church - it was expected from him that he would eat the cracker. That's the ritual, and the guy was not "educating" anyone about his religion because his religion simply forbids his behavior. In order to eat the cracker, he probably had to follow some "lessons" about the ritual. So I can hardly accept that he didn't know, and I think it was a blatant betrayal of trust. Do I care? Not very much. I do care for the physical abuses and threats, but the whole point of the discussion is that you can take different paths in order to expose it.
About PZ, he invited other people to behave as Mr. Cook did, but in this case the request to betray other people's trust was unequivocal. He asked them to behave deceptively.
I don't care for the ritual, the cracker, the body of Christ. I do care, however, when some people think they can betray other people's trust and intrude into their rituals (which may be stupid, but are harmless by most standards, may give people comfort, identity, meaning, motivation). The reason why I care is that if you want to promote rationalism and secularism you should not (in my opinion) promote them as a force against any form of respect or trust. That would leave the moral high ground to religious leaders, and I'm afraid they are quite happy of being "offended" by acts of desecration, instead of being challenged about their justifications for threats and abuses.
Posted by: Lepas | July 26, 2008 11:40 PM
Posted by: usagi | July 26, 2008 11:44 PM
...
Way to set yourself apart.
Posted by: Winawer | July 27, 2008 12:55 AM
Amazing how PZs little minions and apologists come out of the woodwork to defend their master. Farking hilarious example of group-think.
Posted by: darwinoid | July 27, 2008 1:18 AM
Damn! 17 comments on your blog post! A record for you, I believe.
PZ Myers, to give the villain a name, ( we aren't talking about Voldemort here, you Know) Has performed a great public service By pointing out that a very large fraction of our voting, decision making public hold beliefs that are batshit crazy. A nice reasonable post about how both sides were rude and disrespectful of each others beliefs would have left this particular dead cat unflung and probably only generated, oh I don't know, about 17 hits total.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | July 27, 2008 2:07 AM
Lighten up, Chris.
There is a third path one can take apart from reasoned discussion and attention whoring, and that is humor - unless of course you something against every comedian that has made a joke that could offend a large number of people. The original crackergate post was nothing more than a light-hearted parody of the situation - a kid takes a piece of food and people accuse him of "kidnapping". Heck, why not go the whole way and torture that poor cracker? Okay, so maybe your comic taste is different, but the issue here is not about deliberately offending people but rather what is acceptable in the name of comedy.
Of course it is a complex issue; believing that inanimate objects magically become the body of Christ is a silly belief, and it doesn't deserve to be any more respect than scientology or voodoo - but at the same time, it would be inappropriate for hordes of people to intrude on private ceremonies no matter how superstitious and silly they may be. But really, the whole fracas over a lowly cracker is entirely overblown - of course people have the right to be offended, but they probably shouldn't be. The kind of culture we live in instils a kind of ethos that says if you believe in a particular (major) religion, you not only have a right to be offended but you also should be if somebody makes any derogatory remark about it. A lot of it is group think and the religious leaders issuing fatwas and quasi-fatwas play a huge role in that. But of course, it's okay to protest outside a church of scientology.
Posted by: Meh | July 27, 2008 3:00 AM
Lepas "That's the ritual, and the guy was not "educating" anyone about his religion because his religion simply forbids his behavior."
No it doesn't! Why are so many Catholic apologists ignorant of Catholic ritual? It is perfectly acceptable (in some churches) to take the wafer back to one's seat and eat it there. People use the time to pray over it. If the UCF communion ritual was opposed to this behaviour, they certainly didn't make it apparent, until they tried to wrestle it from the kids hands. It was at that point that he decided to flee the church; quite frankly, I don't blame him.
The Church of Scientology trusts its members with knowledge (some of it mystical), and forbids them from talking about it. And yet some have, and in doing so, they opened our eyes to how dangerous (and crazy) the Church is. Do you think it would have been better if they had kept their mouths shut? For the sake of trust?
Darwinoid "Amazing how PZs little minions and apologists come out of the woodwork to defend their master. Farking hilarious example of group-think."
Why the ad-hom? Is everyone who disagrees with Chris one of PZ's minions? If someone misrepresented Chris, would people who defended him be his minions? May I suggest you grow up.
Posted by: MH | July 27, 2008 3:51 AM
Oh yeah!!! Well you only made this blog post because YOU'RE an attention whore, and you knew your lonely little blog would get traffic if you made an egregiously flawed criticism of PZ!
How childish of you!!!
j/k lol
but seriously, strong disagree. I don't understand where "PZ is being mean just to hurt the feelings of the sad deluded people" comes from, and I don't think PZ's blog is lacking in science content. I think the following posts from the past week were well written and very informative:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/tangled_bank_110.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/snake_segmentation.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/epigenetics.php
Posted by: smitty | July 27, 2008 3:57 AM
Actually, I think you have made PZ's point for him, in a way. Somtimes circus-like performance art is just what the situation calls for. If PZ had simply written another blog post where he calmly and rationally explains the hypocrisy of Catholics willing to assault a guest in their church because he didn't swallow his cracker when he should have, then you wouldn't be writing this blog post today. You wouldn't have all these responses to it. We all would have shaken our heads and said, oh, those wacky theists, and gone on to read Darren's post about feathered dinosaurs.
But instead, the number of people talking about, and debating this issue is enormous. And I, for one, learned something new about the use of "host desecration" as an invented crime to be hung on the necks of jews, intellectuals, and other people whom the Church wanted to have killed. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people were put to death in mass pogroms because one member of their community was accused of "host desecration."
And by making a little demonstration, PZ has given us an object lesson in how times have changed, and how they might just as easily change back, if certain people (whose emails he published on the site) had their way. I think he rather brilliantly put the Florida actions and the contents of his wastebasket into perspective, in a real and concrete way: the church used to massacre whole cities for the mere suspicion that one person did what I have just done. I don't think that any amount of "rational discussion" would have driven that point home with quite the same urgency.
Posted by: eugene_X | July 27, 2008 4:14 AM
Lets attempt a little clarity here. UCF student Cook (a Catholic) brought the wafer back to his seat to show his curious friend (who could have gone up and got a wafer himself, if he'd wanted). Church officials tried to wrest it from him, and he fled the church. His well-being was threatened, as was his position at UCF. He later returned the wafer to the church. Catholics are still trying to ruin his education.
PZ noted the idiocy of calling the actions of Cook "blasphemous", and said that if anyone sent him a wafer, he would show them what blasphemy really was. If Donohue hadn't picked up on it, that's probably where it would have ended. However, after the Catholic League released their call to arms, PZ's life was threatened, as was his job. Should PZ have said that he would respect any crackers that were sent him (despite not knowing whether or not they were consecrated)? Lets remember that they are just fricking crackers, and non-Catholics are not under any obligation to treat them as anything other than bits of bread, because that's what they are. What did PZ eventually do? He dumped it in the trash, as you would do with any bit of inedible food produce. He is still getting threats.
Are the people who are saying that what PZ did was wrong advocating the return of all of the religious memorabilia in museums back to their respective cultures? Lets face it, much of that was taken against the will of the worshipers, sometimes by force.
PZ was given some crackers by other people who were freely given them, and he treated them as crackers. The only reason that this turned into such a shit-storm was that certain religions are given un-earned respect in our culture. I don't care if some group thinks that singing "Heartbreak Hotel" over a beef-burger transforms it into bits of Elvis, I am still going to treat it like a burger, because it IS still a burger. People who are not Elvisians are not under any obligation to believe that such a ritual is anything other than crazy and worthless. However, I wouldn't try and stop them from carrying out their ritual, and neither would PZ. I reserve the right to ridicule them, though.
Finally, lets remember that there has been no official comment from the Catholic Church about the behaviour of PZ or Donohue. They could stop the threats in an instant if they wanted to. What does that tell you about their respect for people? That they think that bits of bread that have had magic spells cast on them are more important than people?
Seriously, wake up and smell the insanity.
Posted by: MH | July 27, 2008 4:35 AM
Eugene "And I, for one, learned something new about the use of "host desecration" as an invented crime to be hung on the necks of jews, intellectuals, and other people whom the Church wanted to have killed."
Yes, I have found Cracker-gate instructive. I hadn't realised that the Catholic Church had used accusations of cracker-abuse to wipe out groups of non-Catholics, and I hadn't realised that conservative Catholics today still yearned for those times.
Posted by: MH | July 27, 2008 4:42 AM
Well, you did get me to read your blog by alluding to PZ.
I get to form an opinion, you get a blog hit.
Posted by: John Morales | July 27, 2008 4:58 AM
Congrats for the attention your otherwise pathetically boring musings will achieve for a little while now by writing this piece of drivel.
I was initially inclined to consider a similar if less cowardly position than you Chris,but 12000 hate emails and 15000 raving mad comments on the blog later I have to say this has just worked absolutely beautifully to expose what fringe cult of deluded fools the catholic church really is.
You're a bit pathetic mate.Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by: clinteas | July 27, 2008 4:59 AM
Chris "But Seed's biggest blog, the one to which everyone else in the network is inclined to link if they want a traffic boost, and which therefore can have a big influence on the content of the entire network, long ago ceased to be about either science or conversation."
Over the past few months, PZ has posted on average three articles a week tagged "science" (some of which are BPR3). How do you compare?
Posted by: MH | July 27, 2008 5:54 AM
I can't claim to really know PZ Myers; I never met him in person, and possibly never will. But, after some time reading Pharyngula, I begin to know some of his reactions. And after William "Crazy Bill" Donahue's cries of "DONTCHA DARE DO IT! DONTCHA DARE DO IT!", I sort of knew he was certainly not going to calm things down.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 27, 2008 6:28 AM
PZ's an ass - and has thus securely divided the religious from every wishing to understand/accept atheism and vice versa. What that you say? Atheists accept religion? Hardly.
The poor soul has no ethics, almost to the level of hate-crime behaviour. It got him some attention for his upcoming book - but what a way to do it.
I feel sorry for his kids watching all this.
PZ must have been just weaned to early.
Posted by: philos | July 27, 2008 10:57 AM
Typos in the above:
Remove "y" from "every", first sentence.
Add an " 's " to "What", second sentence.
Add " o " to "to", last sentence.
Sorry, haven't had my coffee yet.
Posted by: philos | July 27, 2008 11:03 AM
"...it's never OK to gratuitously attempt to hurt the feelings of large groups of people"
Yes it is, particularly when their feelings get hurt due to a worldview that, were it not shielded from criticism by being labelled religious, would have them in a room with padded walls.
It is high time such people learn, be they Muslim, Catholic, or any other belief system, that no one else is under any obligation to avoid engaging in behavior that you arbitrarily declare offensive, and the louder you scream that we shouldn't, the more of it you are going to see. We'll destroy crackers if we want to, draw pictures of Mohammed if we want to, and yes, tear up pages of The God Delusion if we so desire. That's what free speach MEANS.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 27, 2008 11:05 AM
I would add to my first paragraph above the qualifier that they believe they have the right to enforce their views through force and threats. If the little old lady down the street thinks her rose bush is a god, I'm not going to go stomp on it just to show her it isn't. But if she starts thinking that MY rose bush is a god...
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 27, 2008 11:12 AM
philos "PZ's an ass..."
Well, that was philos on PZ, now PZ on philos:
"In an unbelievable act of crass, vile smugness, this petty twerp rushed to my site after the fatal 35W bridge collapse to sneer at atheists. "Contemptible" isn't a strong enough word for vermin like this, who use tragedy to push their lies on the bereaved. His kind are what make me despise religion."
philos is in PZ's dungeon because he's a "demented fuckwit and world-class asshole".
Posted by: MH | July 27, 2008 11:47 AM
I disagree that R-W xenophobia is the motivator, or anything like it, for PZ's actions, or Europe's reactions. Musn't a phobia be irrational? Have you read the Sword Verses? Do you know that Muslims educated in the Qu'ran believe that the entire world will one day become Muslim, because Islam is the truth, the word of Allah, and it will win the world as its prize, of its own merit. Moderate Muslims may glaze this over, and in many cases do not know this, but it is present, in their holy book. Christianity has dark promises for non-Christians as well. This is not some fantasy cooked up by my fevered atheist brain. This is a part of their beliefs. Whatever the motives of some individuals (not PZ, I believe he is quite sane), fear of religion can rationally proceed a good reading of their core texts. You and I and most everyone here reading these posts are promised fire, just and deserved fire, from someone's 'just' god, for eternity. True believers, and not the average religious person in tidy, insulated America, understand what their books teach, and carry these promises in their minds, and expose it in their moral superiority. My fear of religion is not irrational. I know what the true believers, the students of religion, the people of god think is good for us, you included Chris, and I promise, however liberal (how about generous, can we try generous?) and kind you would like to appear, you wouldn't agree with them.
Posted by: Kevin | July 27, 2008 1:42 PM
There's an old saying that seems on point: In order to reason with a mule one first has to get the mule's attention. Sometimes a whack between the eyes with a 2x4 (or impaling a cracker) is the only way to do so.
I initially thought PZ's behavior was over the top. Then I read a bit further on what stimulated it, and concluded that the use of a 2x4 was more than justified. Webster Cook was relatively powerless in his situation -- by pressuring UCF to sanction Cook, the Catholic League and its supporters were applying hugely asymmetrical power to a college kid. PZ's actions created a much more equal power distribution, and (among other things) cast a bright light on the actions of the Catholic League. Casting a bright light on the behavior of religious oppressors can only be good. (And I use the phrase "religious oppressors" with care.)
Posted by: RBH | July 27, 2008 1:50 PM
@ RBH
Fair enough. So why didn't PZ go after the Catholic League (a minority group that I will hazard isn't supported by the vast majority of American - or world - Catholics)? Instead he went after all Catholics, the vast majority of which are not "religious oppressors" or theocrats. A slight case of overbombing.
Let's face it, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - that PZ ever does is going to affect Catholicism one iota. (The same can be said for Dawkins at al). It may make him feel good to fight the "good" fight, he may think he's making a difference, but he isn't. This isn't "performance art" as some have suggested. This isn't a powerful comment on symbols. It's a stupid adolescent stunt. If PZ really wanted to help the student, he should have gone after the Catholic League.
Posted by: John Lynch | July 27, 2008 2:22 PM
@John Lynch
How did Dr Myers 'Go after all Catholics'?
Do you realize that Catholics that aren't of the wacky Catholic League conservative variety don't give a crap about this?
He demonstrated that nothing should be held sacred, which harms no one.
Some idiots will get all in a froth, but that's generated by their own fetishes. If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't openly hold ridiculous beliefs.
Posted by: Jeff | July 27, 2008 2:55 PM
Webster Cook would have been expelled, beaten, and probably murdered already, if PZ hadn't shone a very big public light on the terrorist sentiments lining up against him.
When religious loonies in red states pick a powerless victim to destroy, you bet your ass that powerless victim gets destroyed. Thank goodness this one had a vocal and, yes, arrogant advocate; maybe now that PZ has magnified the story, the authorities have to at least behave as if they were following due process.
Posted by: TTT | July 27, 2008 2:56 PM
John asked
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The "mule" is the vast majority of world Catholics to which you refer, and the message that needs to be emphatically brought to their attention is that the theocrats -- the Donohues of the world -- have arrogated to themselves the role of spokesman for all those Catholics, claiming to speak on their behalf. As and if world Catholicism disavows loons like Donohue then yes, more closely targeted measures are appropriate. But so long as they remain silent, giving assent by that silence, the Donohues of the world continue to dominate the discourse, if such it can be called, and a 2x4 is an entirely appropriate tool.And you didn't address the original power/influence asymmetry that was redressed by Myers' intervention.
Posted by: RBH | July 27, 2008 4:54 PM
I originally thought PZ was using a two-by-four to lash out at a mosquito, and my reasoning was based on reasoning I've seen from a lot of atheists on this subject: why hurt anyone's feelings if you don't have to?
I've since changed my mind, even before PZ's finale. Somebody has to point out that the Emperor may be naked, but he is carrying concealed weapons under his invisible finery. All Christians (and most other religions, too) demand on some level that everyone has to accept the solemn dignity of their belief system, no matter that some of us think it is a pack of destructive fables. The Catholic response to PZ'z campaign has made that painfully obvious.
Just as eye-opening has been reading the websites and blogs of more educated and tolerant Catholics, where for the most part they miss the point, that beliefs (in this case a particularly horrendous one involving cannibalistic ritual transformations) do not merit respect solely because many people hold them, and that not respecting the belief is not equal to not respecting the person, and need not lead (and usually doesn't) to discriminating against the person.
*None* of the messages from Catholics, neither the lunatics issuing death threats on PZ's blog, nor the aggrieved nice Catholics who insist on praying for us all, ever express any intention of having any respect for *our* lack of belief.
I'm nowhere as good as others at expressing why I believe PZ is in the right, but I've certainly come around over the past couple weeks.
PZ is a brave man, and has done the right thing, and if as a Catholic, your feelings have been outraged and hurt, please seek insight regarding why that might be the wrong response.
Posted by: Bee | July 27, 2008 5:15 PM
Woozle,
Before we can really discuss this, you need to get my positino right. I don't mind offending people, and I don't think discussions have to be polite. I mind offending people pointlessly. And you'll note I addressed the reasons you gave in my previous post, and argued that PZ's offensiveness is this time, as always, pointless. It gets him nowhere, except more attention, it gets reason nowhere, it gets science nowhere, and it gets atheism nowhere.
Let me repeat that one more time: offending people isn't the problem; offending people to no end is the problem.
Posted by: Chris | July 27, 2008 5:54 PM
Everyone already knows geeks are loud and obnoxious. Everyone doesn't already know that Christian zealots will threaten your life if you don't obey them.
There is also a contingent of geeks like the Unabomber and the Virginia Tech murderer who kill people because of a sense of personal offense. Maybe we should think of ways to deeply offend and humiliate geeks so that fence-sitters will be clear about this evil in our midst.
And, in America today, there are probably more husbands who kill their wives for disobedience than there are Christians who kill because they are disobeyed. We really need to expose the truth about husbands by ridiculing and humiliating men who marry. Fence-sitters who believe that being a husband is a benign life choice needs a slap in the face to get their attention to the danger husbands pose to a civilized society.
Of course, what is really going on here is that a fringe of defensive, emotionally limited people has been stirred up by this. Drawing death threats in the age of internet isn't that difficult and these threats are not, in any way, limited to disturbed religious people. Pick any hot issue, take a stand that deeply offends some people, give it a lot of publicity, and death threats will emerge from the disturbed fringes. I bet Ward Churchill received hundreds of death threats, just as Martin Luther King did. Bet you even the Pope regularly receives death threats.
Posted by: Dr X | July 27, 2008 6:04 PM
Woozle, I forgot to mention that I gave the examples in the post.
Also, I hope at least someone notes that the title of the post is a play on PZ's title. Duh.
And to those who think I'm seeking attention, God know. I purposefuly didn't mention PZ's name or link to his post, so that this wouldn't show up in any searches for PZ's post or his name in association with this topic.
Furthermore, this is the sort of attention I really can't stand. Anyone who's been around here for a while will notice that I've virtually stopped posting about religion and atheism altogether, even from a scientific perspective (something I'm very interested in), because when I do I get 100+ comments from PZ's epigones basically saying that I am an idiot, as is anyone who doesn't agree 100% with PZ, and that learning about religion, even from a scientific perspective, is stupid because it's just a bunch of irrational hooey. If I want attention, I sure as hell don't want it from a bunch of anti-intellectualists blinded by rage and allegiance.
To speak more substantially (it's amazing that only Woozle and one or two others have actually addressed what I've said here), it is important to highlight what Donahue (or however you spell that piece of shit's name) and his minions have done, but there were a lot of ways to do that, and this was the wrong way. It was the wrong way because it detracts from their assholeness by making the focus the assholeness of PZ and his minions, who've behaved pretty dispicably in their own right.
Like John Lynch said, the focus should be the assholes who went after the UCF student. Instead, PZ has made the focus about his crusade against religion, and his own attempts to be pointlessly offensive. And the only people who think he was right in doing so are the people who already agree with him no every point.
Posted by: Chris | July 27, 2008 6:15 PM
I do I get 100+ comments from PZ's epigones basically saying that I am an idiot,
No you are not an idiot, you are much worse, you are an insincere atheist or even may be a covert religionist of some sort somehow embarassed by murky, ill-defined, "spiritual" feelings and not willing to denounce the maladaptive nature of "beliefs".
To be precise, what I mean here by "beliefs" is any fancy hypothesis which lacks the priming of some evidence (what if the moon is made of green cheese?) or which pretends to hold AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE that a cracker IS the flesh and blood of a GOD.
We are clearly here in the realm of psychiatry (in the paranoia sector) EVEN IF THIS CAN BE EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTIONARY SELECTION, or milder sociological pressures as explained by Coturnix.
Posted by: Kevembuangga | July 27, 2008 6:54 PM
MH quotes PZ:
"In an unbelievable act of crass, vile smugness, this petty twerp rushed to my site after the fatal 35W bridge collapse to sneer at atheists. "Contemptible" isn't a strong enough word for vermin like this, who use tragedy to push their lies on the bereaved. His kind are what make me despise religion."
and proves one of Chris' point. The ad hominim tantrum is definitely self-righteous - just like the extreme he blasts.
Bee says, "*None* of the messages from Catholics, neither the lunatics issuing death threats on PZ's blog, nor the aggrieved nice Catholics who insist on praying for us all, ever express any intention of having any respect for *our* lack of belief." Just like a lot of these other posts this is an obvious overgeneralization. I said it before, and I'll say it again. Arguing against the extremem is easy. Overgeneralization is easy. "Not all generalizations are wrong. But some are." And those that are most tolerant, are not likely to be posting much on this issue, anyway.
Finally, I see some of this defense of PZ as defense of a sacred cow. Not much different than the ranting Catholic extremists. My opinion - both are wrong.
Posted by: CA | July 27, 2008 7:01 PM
P.S. In case you think I did not actually addressed what [you]'ve said here:
There is NO WAY you can argue with a paranoid psychotic, so there is no point "proving" the assholeness is on Donahue's side. He will get excuses and justifications as needed.
It doesn't seem the Catholic Church treatement of the paedophilic priests teaches you anything!
Posted by: Kevembuangga | July 27, 2008 7:04 PM
When someone comes forward into the public forum, they offer themselves up as both a target of adulation or criticism. You take the bad with the good. If somoeone adopts a set of beliefs that they never reveal or explain to anyone, those beliefs are unlikely to be attacks. If someone takes them out and publishes them, expecting people to respect them, they're fair game for whatever questioning someone wants to direct at them. Religion, by making claims about reality, invites critique on its claims -- and since its claims are pretty silly the critique often appears in the form of outright laughter.
I make fun of religion because it amuses me to do so.I need no other reason, agenda, goal, or excuse. By making this public, I, of course, invite a response in turn. Had I sat home and quietly mocked the faithful in my own mind, (or had they sat home and quietly believed their batshit insanity in their own minds) there would be nothing to discuss.
never OK to gratuitously attempt to hurt the feelings of large groups of people, with no other reasonable end but to hurt their feelings
Who says?? I think it's perfectly fine - maybe even fun - to do so. What's more, I could argue that by virtue of its amusing me it is not gratuitous because it serves the goal of my pleasure.
All of this is meaningless; don't get your panties to tightly wadded-up about it. It's all in your head.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 27, 2008 7:24 PM
Hey, just about the attention-getting bit, just take a good look at your two last posts. Way to go sciencey. (I know this is low, but you really, really, asked for it.)
As for the content of your post, there's nothing to address here. You want a rational discussion on this? What do you suggest, have an appointment with Donohue and then share arguments? Or maybe you can explain to everybody why it is bad to throw a *cracker* in the trash. We're all ears.
Posted by: onclepsycho | July 27, 2008 7:27 PM
kevem, it's good that you know the sincerity of my atheism. The truth is, I'm a perfectly sincere atheist who thinks that your naive scientism/verificationism is, well, naive, and came at his atheism from an ethical/social perspective. I'm an atheist who thinks that PZ and his anti-intellectualism, and the mindless minions who follow him, are harmful for atheism in the long run (even if they've temporarily made it cool to be an atheist again). And I'm an atheist who thinks that social change should be the goal of any and all who have progressive ideals, and that attacking religion merely distracts from that goal.
By the way, I don't think we should rationally discuss things with Donohue. PZ = Donohue = Dawkins = Dobson = Robertson, in my mind. I don't think we can discuss anything with these people (and this comment section shows we can't discuss anything with their followers, either), because they're not interested in rational discussion. But we can have discussions about the issues with sane people, and we missed a pretty good opportunity to do so, in this case. And I believe there are some people who are swayed by the PZ's and Dobson's of the world who are still sane enough to hear the voice of reason, and even converse with it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have written this post.
Oncle, I'm going to leave that comment, because it is yet another example of how PZ's mindless drones behave, and how incapable they are of rational discussion, but if you comment here again, ever, on any post, it will be deleted. I tell you this so you won't waste your time.
Posted by: Chris | July 27, 2008 7:40 PM
"Bee says, "*None* of the messages from Catholics, neither the lunatics issuing death threats on PZ's blog, nor the aggrieved nice Catholics who insist on praying for us all, ever express any intention of having any respect for *our* lack of belief." Just like a lot of these other posts this is an obvious overgeneralization. I said it before, and I'll say it again. Arguing against the extremem is easy. Overgeneralization is easy. "Not all generalizations are wrong. But some are." And those that are most tolerant, are not likely to be posting much on this issue, anyway.
Finally, I see some of this defense of PZ as defense of a sacred cow. Not much different than the ranting Catholic extremists. My opinion - both are wrong." - from CA's post above
Show me how that is an overgeneralization. Google up a few 'nice' Catholics, and you'll discover pretty much every one of them (certainly every one I've read) includes the usual assertions that atheists have no morals, or any morals they have spring from the common religions in their culture, that atheists are possessed/influenced by Satan/demons/evil, and of course that we will burn. Forever. There is never an admission that we may have logical reasons for our beliefs, a human moral structure to adhere to, and just maybe, a desire for Catholics and other religionists to quit fantasizing about our eternal horrible torture. And oh, yes - the 'better' atheists don't talk negatively about religion, ever.
And I'm really tired of this accusation that anyone who defends PZ is one of his horde/goons/acolytes. Certainly there are super PZ fans and followers. I'm not one of them. I enjoy PZ's blog and a great many other SB blogs. On this occasion, I agree with PZ. Other times, I don't.
Posted by: Bee | July 27, 2008 7:54 PM